All right, we're just getting word our friends at Dow Jones, of course, according to The Wall Street Journal, that a big deal is in the works involving Aetna. Those shares were jumping 12 percent today. Now we know why, on word that CVS is in talks to buy the company outright. Now, Aetna shares, as I said, were up in anticipation of some deal. Something was percolating. Again, when we get more on this, we will let you know, but, again, more transactions to report. More mergers to report. More frenetic activity to report. And one of the reasons why the Dow was advancing today, that also had something to do with tax cuts, and the closer we get, the better stocks look. And that was sealed with a development on Capitol Hill involving a certain budget, but by the narrowest of votes, and despite a lot of infighting that Speaker Ryan was alluding to. Let's listen to Speaker Ryan earlier today. [Begin Video Clip] If we're calling each other names or calling each other out or saying things against each other, what does that do to help a working mom get ahead? What does that do to advance tax reform which will give us faster economic growth and bigger paychecks? Nothing. [End Video Clip] No, he's right about that. The fighting notwithstanding and all these little egotistical tussles back and forth, the fact of the matter is, when all was said and done, despite that, it was close, but, in the end, the House did approve the Senate budget. But I do emphasize close, by a vote of 216 to 212. We could see that there were 20, 20 Republicans who weren't keen on that. Now, most of them were from these high-tax states, very concerned that if they have not settled this issue of deductions and whether deductions would be allowed for state and local taxes, a big issue for them, then they really wouldn't be all over this attempt right now. Now, we're going to explore that in a lot more detail, and we're all over this with Republican Senator Marco Rubio, the RNC head Ronna McDaniel, and, of course, Democratic Senator Chris Coons, fair and balanced, with all angles covered here. We begin with Peter Doocy on Capitol Hill on why, in the end, this ended up being much closer than they probably wanted. But they got it done, I guess, Peter, right? They did. But it was very close, Neil. However, it was just a runway for the tax reform bill, according to Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, who is actually writing the tax bill. So, he says, when that hits the House floor, the vote won't necessarily be that close here or over in the Senate across the capital, because Bob Corker, who wouldn't vote for President Trump again if he had the chance, will vote for tax reform. [Begin Video Clip] It would be like somebody in your listening audience representing their company, sitting across the table from someone they may have a low regard for, but are they going to do something that's going to damage their company because of that? Absolutely not. I mean, this is something that can be great for our nation. I'm all in. [End Video Clip] At the White House, President Trump has basically been daring Democrats to vote against the tax bill that would mean cuts for most, saying that he will campaign against red state Democrats who go against the tax bill. But because Republicans still have not released specifics of the plan, Democratic leaders are taking the first shot, saying that people are going to lose more than they gain. [Begin Video Clip] It's a moment of definition. It's a moment of definition. And we will not allow them to misrepresent the facts on this tax bill to the American people, heartbreaking, because we could have come together to do something in a bipartisan way that would be sustainable. [End Video Clip] For weeks, Republicans have been saying you just got to pass this budget to get to tax reform, even if you don't like it. But 20 Republicans just could not stomach it. They voted against it anyway. Eleven of the 20 were from New York and New Jersey. Those are states with very high state and local taxes. And these lawmakers say that they want to make sure deductions for those high taxes, state and local, stay in place. Otherwise, they may bail again -- Neil. All right, Peter, thank you very, very much, Peter Doocy. So, where to from here? Of course, they are going to meet now and try to hammer out a tax cut accord. But those efforts are a little bit bumpy. We're told, for example, that just trying to come to agreement on those write-offs for your state and local taxes, as well as protecting the integrity of 401(k) contributions, keeping them tax-deductible, that they were trying to find some compromises on them within at least the House Ways and Means Committee and came up short. The Washington Examiner's Susan Ferrechio on all of that. Susan, where is this headed right now? If you had to gauge it, it sounds like a lot of Republicans would hold their nose, but still support a tax cut. The question is, how many of them do so? What do you think? Well, it depends what the loophole closures are. One person's loophole closure is another lawmaker's very important tax exemption. So, I think that you will get a lot of Republicans on board. But the question is, will they get enough to pass it, particularly in the Senate? I think it all boils down to these deductions. And if each lawmaker examines the deduction, and one determines that their constituents will lose out, you have got a problem. And so we're looking, as you said, at the state and local tax deduction, whether or not that will negatively impact constituents in certain states, in certain districts. And then you also have this debate over the 401(k) deductions. I was talking to lawmakers today who basically told me, Republicans that you would think would vote for the tax bill no matter, saying, don't touch the 401(k). They don't even want to go there with the 401(k). So, the problem Republicans have, is, yes, we would love to lower taxes for everybody, but they have got to find offsets. Offsets are the way you pay for them, so that you don't just blow a big hole in the already gigantic deficit. They don't have a solution on that yet. We're going to see the legislation next week. But even right now, as we speak, Neil, they're meeting over in the Capitol, and they're trying to hash out a way to actually close some loopholes, pay for it without losing Republican support. That's where they are. An uphill battle, to put it mildly. Susan, thank you. With all this breaking news, I do apologize for cutting it short here. Update you again. We're finding out a little bit more about this CVS health deal in talks to buy Aetna. It would give Aetna a market value of about $53 billion. The two have been sort of kicking each others' tires. But, again, whether this has anything to do with a Republican revamp and as well as fees we pay to these guys through tax dollars, anyone's guess. What we now know is that deals are popping. And this one is big, and I mean big. Now to the Senate and what they do with what they're left with, a battle royal over what is in and what is out, with Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio over what he thinks will be the ultimate winner. Now, back to this budget issue today, the House voting on the Senate measure essentially as is, 20 Republicans voting against it. What a lot of them have problems with is this plan to wipe out local and state tax deductions, which doesn't fly for those who come from very high tax-states. I raised that issue with Florida Marco Rubio just a short time ago. [Begin Videotape] Is it your sense that that provision will be in the final tax package? Should it be? What do you think? Well, that's what they're going to work through on the committees. It's not a reason to vote against the budget. The budget is just the vehicle that is being used for tax reform. That might be a reason for them to come out against tax reform or try to change the details of tax reform, but that shouldn't be a reason to vote against the budget. So, again, that's one -- look, there's going to be real committee hearings here in front of the public and there's going to be debate and there are going to be votes. And we're going to get to a place we need to get to. But we got to get it done. There's no alternative. And you cannot let sort of the enemy be the perfect -- the -- the -- the -- the perfect be the enemy of the good here. We have got to do tax reform. One of the things you have espoused, with Senator Mike Lee, is this idea to significantly up the child tax credit from $500 to $2,000. But what struck me with that, and maybe I misread it, Senator, would that apply to families as well who don't pay any federal taxes at this point, federal income taxes? I want it to apply towards payroll tax. And here's why. The family is the most important institution in society. And parenting is the most important job any of us will do. And, number two, something that Mike Lee talks about and does very well, there's a parent penalty. So, all of us, when we retire, we want Social Security, we want Medicare. Who pays for that? Today's workers pay for today's retirees. So, when I retire, tomorrow's workers will be paying for my Medicaid and Social Security. If I have four children, and someone has no children, and we both retire, I just spent basically $250,000 per child to raise four taxpayers that are going to pay for your retirement, and you have no children. So, the tax code should account for that. Now, the $2,000 per child doesn't even come close to making up for the gap, but it most certainly accounts for the increase and most certainly is a way to help families move ahead. And, by the way, if we don't do the child tax credit and we don't make it refundable, then you're actually going to see some middle-class families get tax increases. And the president is not going to sign that. And I'm not -- we're not -- people aren't going to support a middle-class tax increase. It won't pass. So, we have to do it. Do you think that it opens up, with the very best of intentions, Senator, but a slippery slope here where we end up giving tax breaks to those who don't necessarily -- you're quite right. They pay FICA and related taxes, but they are not paying federal income taxes. So now we're in a battle to provide benefits to those who are not kicking in for federal income taxes? Well, first of all, when you work, and they take that money out of your paycheck, it doesn't matter if it's income tax or FICA. It's less money. That's number one. It's a tax to the federal government, just in a different bucket. Number two, hopefully, the growth in the economy, which is the other part and the big part of this tax reform, is going to move people into income brackets over time that they are going to actually be making more, and they will be, not because the rates are higher, but they will be in those brackets that are paying income tax, and so, again, at a lower rate, because we're going to do that as well. That's the second part. And the third part is, you don't get it unless you're working. You have got to be working. It's a pro-work endeavor here. It is certainly -- it's certainly better for families and for our country than stay home and be eligible to collect government benefits at an amount or greater than the tax credit. If this credit were not included, though, Senator, would you be a no vote on the tax package? Well, let me -- I think if this credit and it wasn't refundable and it raised taxes on middle-class families, the president wouldn't sign it. So, it's a nonstarter. We have to do it. We will do it. Because it's not in there now. Well, it's in the framework. Obviously, there's no bill because the details are going to get worked on now. And that's the way it should be. Right. So next week, when we get the details, it will be in that, you're told? It's either going to be there or it's going to be there at the end. But it will be there, because the president, I believe, will not sign it. The president is not going to sign a tax increase, especially on working families. Of that, I'm confident. How is your relationship with the president, sir? The reason why I ask -- and you have addressed it with reporters, the dust- ups he's had with Senators Flake and Corker. You said, I believe it was yesterday, I hope I got the date right: The Republican Party is going through a moment of realignment internally, an internal debate about what the party is going to be about and what is going to represent in the years to come. Are you saying that those senators are the old party and Donald Trump is the new? What are you saying? No. I'm saying that that's what everyone is going through. The rest of that statement was, so is the Democratic Party. So is the media and academia and virtually every institution in our society. The world has changed. The economy has changed. It's challenged all of us to reexamine what the role of our institutions are and what the right way forward is. [Crosstalk] Well, Senator Flake seems to not like the change in that direction, that the president is debasing the party and the nation. Do you agree with him? You know what? Well, everyone is going to express themselves. Jeff Flake is a friend of mine and someone I admire. We agree on a lot of things. We disagree on a few. That's the way the world is. The same is true with the president. You asked about my relationship. It's pretty straightforward. If I agree with him, I'm going to support him. If I disagree with him, I'm going to tell him and try to change his mind. And if he still does something I don't agree with, I'm going to say it. But he was elected president. I'm going to work with him for the good of our country. And we're going to try to get good things done. And, in the end, I try to focus almost all of my time on helping the people watching this, not the people covering this. I know that, for many, the sort of daily back and forth is interesting. And everyone has a right to do it. And some of it is very valid stuff that is being talked about. But I choose to spend the majority of my time trying to get tax reform done, and when we got the VA reforms and strengthening our military and helping pediatric cancer issues and helping Florida recover from a hurricane. So you think this tit for tat, even on the president's part, is counterproductive? I think it just wastes a lot of time on things that are not relevant to what we should be working here on. That's what I believe. But everybody is going to do what they are going to do. I can't control what other people do. I can only control what I do. And what I do is -- try to do every -- anyway is kind of focus on what people have sent me up here to do. And that is make the country and their lives better. Senator, there's a lot of back and forth on the legitimacy of this growing scandal around Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama regarding the so- called Uranium One issue, and whether the Russians were able to curry favor with the Obama administration and more in the role of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state benefited the Clinton Initiative, the Clinton Foundation. Do you think she had to have been aware of a lot of these details she says she was unaware of? I don't know. And that's why I think it's probably within the scope of Mueller's special prosecutor investigation on what role that could have had in the election. I believe that's within their scope. And they should look at it. It should be investigated. Anything like that is concerning. Do you think he is and he will? And if he doesn't look at that... I don't know. I wouldn't know. Yes. Well, I don't know. I think, if he doesn't look at it, he better have a good reason why they didn't look at it. But, again, they're called independent for a reason. They don't coordinate with us. They don't tell us what they're looking at. And they don't tell us what they're going to work on. But I believe it should be. It's a legitimate issue to focus on. And suffice it to say, if that were us or that was about the Trump administration, there would be a tremendous of coverage on it right now on some of the other networks. So, just kind of seeing it as I see it there. Quickly, sir, on that same issue, a number of Democrats have said there's no equating these largest charges with Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russians for a meal and discussing dirt on his opponent. Republicans argue, well, that's essentially what is arguing here. Your thoughts. Well, I don't know who said that. I don't know. A deal to purchase radioactive material in exchange for cash and other things I think is a little bit more relevant, in my view. That doesn't make anything else irrelevant. But I think that's a pretty big deal, certainly more important than opposition research in a campaign, in my view. Senator, this tax package, the timeline seems to be, since the House went ahead and voted on the Senate budget, that saved some days to get this done. Are you confident this will get done by the end of the year? I am. It's not going to be easy. It shouldn't be easy. Tax reform is a big -- and it's important and so it should be hard and it should be debated and it should be well-understood. And we don't want any unintended consequences. But I'm confident that we can get it done, because I just can't imagine not getting it done. Like, what it would mean to our economy? What would that mean -- why are we here? Like, why would you elect people to the House -- majorities in the House and Senate and the White House who support tax reform and then they can't do tax reform? I think people have a reason to ask, well, then what is the point? I just can't imagine not doing it. I think it would really hurt our economy and confidence. But I think it would be devastating politically as well. And I imagine most people around here understand that, too. And in the end, the two things that have been kicked around like the deduction for state and local taxes, the deductions for 401(k) contributions, are you opposed to either, both being played with? Yes, I don't think those are -- those are just -- somebody is out there talking about what are the options. What are the things that you could go after, and then they just start floating these to see what the reaction to them are. In the end, I want tax reform passed. And to do that, we are going to have to make some difficult and unpopular decisions. I have no idea -- the president has already said he doesn't want the 401(k) thing. Maybe the House will produce something different that has it in there. But in the end, that is all going to be debated through. But there's going to be things in there that people don't like. I don't think it will be the 401(k) provision. But that's what the debate will be about. But in the end, not doing anything is not an option. So there's no way this tax reform is going to have everything I want. OK? It's not. But the question is, does it make things better or does it make things worse? And if it makes things better, I'm going to be for it. [End Videotape] And, fair and balanced, the read from the other side. Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons will be joining me. I want to update you on these he blitzkrieg of earnings that are coming out. Microsoft out as well beating earnings and sales expectations. Alphabet, Google the parent there, its shares up sharply after beating earnings expectations. But the winner of the day easily appears to be Amazon. Now, I think they were looking for something in the vicinity of 3 to 4 cents a share. It turned out to be north of 50 cents a share. That blew everyone's even most bullish estimates away. That stock up about 60-plus bucks a share. And so it goes. We will have more after this. All right, no Democrat voted for this budget matter in the House today. What happens now in the Senate with Chris Coons, the Democratic Delaware senator, also serves on Senate Judiciary Committee. Sir, very good to have you. Thank you. Great to be with you again, Neil. As you see things now, how would you vote? As I see things now, how would I vote on what? On the tax framework that they so far point out. And you're quite right. We won't know the details of the brackets until next week. [Laughter] OK. Right. Right. But many in your party have always argued it's tilted to the rich. Your thoughts? Well, what we have got so far is a fairly broad, fairly gauzy tax proposal. It's about nine pages, but it's not yet a bill. It has not been analyzed or scored. We don't know the details. To the extent that it follows the broad framework and cuts $470 billion out of Medicare and a trillion out of Medicaid over 10 years, I would oppose that. To the extent it fails to really deliver significant tax relief to the middle class, I would oppose it. But I think there are things that we could and should be doing on a bipartisan basis. Neil, yesterday, I introduced a bill here in the Senate where my lead legislative partner in the House is Ted Poe, one of the most conservative House members from Houston, Texas. My partner here in the Senate is Jerry Moran of Kansas, a conservative Republican. And it's a bill that would help finance energy production in the United States that is good for oil and gas and pipelines and for renewables. I have got proposals, bipartisan proposals, that would help strengthen manufacturing. Neil, I do think there's things we can do in tax reform that will make it something that can get bipartisan support. But, so far, it's only been written by one party, and I think that will make it harder for it to succeed. Senator, one of the arguments that Republicans have been raising is that maybe if they make the tax package that they are working on -- you're quite right, we will know details next week, with brackets, et cetera -- is maybe offering an additional bracket for the very rich, that they -- that their taxes will stay the same, and maybe even go higher if they're not allowed state and local tax deductions, and that that might win over Democratic votes, maybe your own. Would it? Making the tax system more progressive, but also simpler and fairer, and making it a tax framework that encourages investment and job- creating activity, like infrastructure and manufacturing, all of that would move in the right direction, in my view. What about the deduction for state and local taxes? What about 401(k) contributions and keeping them tax-deductible right now? Where do you stand on either, both? Well, I'm from the state of Delaware. We have relatively low property taxes compared to our surrounding states, but relatively high compared to the rest of the country. About a third of all Delawareans take advantage of the state and local tax deduction. And it's worth about $9,000 per household. That would mean a significant tax increase for a number of Delawareans and Delaware families if we got rid of state and local. I think we will see that it's unpopular in the House in a broader range of districts than might have initially been expected. And the 401(k), we have a retirement savings crisis currently and growing in the years ahead. My very first job here in Senate as an intern as for Bill Roth, Republican, former senator from Delaware, author of the Roth Sure. He saw savings and saving for retirement as one of the biggest challenges facing America. And I think we're also going to see capping or eliminating the 401(k) deduction as something that will face a lot of resistance. That's why it's hard to put together a tax reform package, Neil, is there's no unguarded money here in Washington. And I do think we're going to find it controversial if, in looking for revenue, the tax package, once it comes out next week, includes cuts to either state and local deduction or the 401(k). Yes, you reminded me of Senator Roth. And Kemp, Roth, remember, they went back and forth, whose name should go first. Yes, exactly. Senator, very good seeing you again. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Neil. All right. A lot of those secret JFK assassination files will be released, maybe all of them. Larry Sabato, who literally wrote the book on John F. Kennedy, on why it's very important we all get to see them -- next. How are you doing in these markets? Well, after-hours, just after-hours, Jeff Bezos of Amazon is $6 billion richer. Have a lovely dinner. [Laughter] All right. It's been more than half-a-century. Yet, only today -- and it's not official -- the remaining files on the assassination of John F. Kennedy being released. FOX News Channel's Casey Stegall in Dealey Plaza, where it all went down more than 53 years ago. Sir? Well, Neil, we have been here very early -- since very early this morning. And there is quite a buzz in the air out here. Hundreds of thousands of people stop by this spot every year to see the grassy knoll, where we're standing, the road back here, which was the motorcade route, and then the orange building in the background, the old Texas Book Repository, where the fatal shot came from. But, again, that depends on what you talk to, because one man earlier told me he hopes that these newly released materials provide additional evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, in other words, substantiating the conspiracy theories. Another woman said visiting the very spot where U.S. history changed forever has long been on her bucket list, and the timing just could not be more perfect. [Begin Video Clip] My whole life, I wanted to come here. A few things, cross Abbey Road, come to Dealey Plaza. And, like I said, the chances of us coming here the day that they could potentially be released is just amazing. It's like the biggest thing that could ever happen to us here. [End Video Clip] A lot of people have been confused. They have been coming up to asking us if the documents are going to be released at this location. It's not. It's being down through the National Archives, just over 3,800 documents in total expected to be released at some point today. And it could shed some new light or provide us with some additional evidence in terms of the investigation on what went down right here on that cold November day in 1963 -- Neil. Casey, thank you very much, my friend. To Larry Sabato now, who has written the definitive The Kennedy Half- Century, has looked at an examined the Kennedy years in great detail. Larry, do you think we are going to learn anything new? Well, I'm hoping we will. I think we will learn nuggets and details, Neil. If anybody is expecting -- and I have had e-mails like this -- if anybody is expecting a document that reads, the following were participants in the JFK assassination conspiracy, they are going to be really disappointed. And if there were any documents from intelligence agencies indicating that this group or that group or that individual had a role in this, it could easily have been destroyed a long time ago or not turned over to the review board that was established by the same 1992 law that we are experiencing, we hope, today. We're still waiting for these documents. [Laughter] Yes. Yes. They have until 12:59 -- 11:59. So, you know, we have a ways to go. Yes, no, time is a wasting. You know, Larry, a lot of people still cannot fathom, after all these years, almost 54 years now, that one guy could have pulled off something like this, take down the most powerful man on the planet, change modern history as we know it. And because, I guess, we can't fathom that, we assign all other sorts of groups, not minimizing the distinct possibility of that, but now focusing on what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing in Mexico City weeks before, who he was talking to, whether he could have had financial or other help. Your thoughts. Look, I think all of us have had a hard time believing that Lee Harvey Oswald did it. He, pardon the expression, is an insignificant nothing. He was a sociopath. He had loads of personal problems. But, you know, sometimes in history, Neil, things line up just perfectly, and the least significant person can eliminate the most significant person. Absolutely. Absolutely. This may be one of those times. I don't know. And I'm not prejudging it. I'm open to a lot of different possibilities, at least that Lee Harvey Oswald maybe told some people in advance, perhaps in Mexico City, about what he was going to do, or that he was assisted by somebody. I don't think there was another shooter in Dealey Plaza. But, as you know, Neil, there are millions of people who believe otherwise. Absolutely. Larry, and you have been to Dealey Plaza many times, as have I. And I'm always amazed how perfect it looks, even to this day, like it did back then. The school book depository is now a museum. But when you realize that the president's motorcade was almost done, he was minutes away from the Trade Mart, where he going to speak to business leaders, local business leaders and the like. So, when you realize how close he was to just getting out of there, and then what stopped there, it really is a sight that sets you back, you know? It does, very much so. And Dallas has worked hard to preserve that area. Absolutely. At one point, they wanted to tear down the School Book Depository Building. It was a painful reminder of an awful day that ruined Dallas' reputation unfairly -- 200,000 people showed up to cheer Absolutely. One, or, if you prefer, a few people showed up to -- with murder on their minds But, look, this is something everyone should go to see. And that museum you mentioned, the Sixth Floor Museum, they do a wonderful job there. Remarkable. Just remarkable. I urge everybody to go to it. Yes. No, I fully agree with you, my friend. All right, we will watch very closely when those documents are released. It doesn't change what happened on that tragic day. But, as the good professor pointed out, it will be interesting to read and study nonetheless. All right, in the meantime, new documents related to that anti-Trump dossier paid for in part by the Clinton campaign, that's heading to the House committee next week. The guy who heads up that committee -- next. We're hearing that Speaker Paul Ryan is saying that the FBI will be handing its dossier-related documents, any that might apply here, over to the House Intelligence Committee as soon as next week. That makes this fellow, no doubt, very happy, Republican chairman of that committee, Devin Nunes, who joins us right now. Sir, thank you for coming. As always, Neil, thank you. That is important stuff to have, isn't it? [Laughter] Yes. We have only been asking for it since March. So, it's a little late. But, look, it's better -- better late than never. But, look, we're going to go through it next week. We're going to find out what we need to know. And the main point of all this is, we need to know whether or not this Trump dossier that was now paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, if that was used as a basis for any of these investigations. If it was, there's going to be a major problem. I'm glad you said that this is something you have been looking for, for a number of months, back to February and March, because a lot of people are saying, oh, this is newfound -- when that's not quite the case. But a lot of people now are beginning to wonder what the Republicans were doing either in this case, in the Donald Trump case. Obviously, whether they had an agenda to elect one over the other, they wanted to screw up our election, it seems, or at least get nitty-gritty in it. Well, look, that is -- none of that is new. What has allowed them to be successful in this sabotage of an election is, they're trying to change public opinion. And what has happened here, with all of this commotion and all of the nonsense that was put out, don't you think it would have been important for the Congress to know back in January, when we were first briefed on this Trump dossier, that it was actually paid for by the opposition party? So the people that made the Russians successful are the Democrats. And the people who have continued this nonsense over and over and over again, looking for Russians behind every tree, looking -- we continue to chase ghosts around and around this place. Yes. And -- look, and I say this as the guy who warned the Obama administration and our intelligence agencies in April -- March, April of 2016, I was the one that said this was the biggest intelligence failure since 9/11. So, I take the Russian threat very, very seriously. But doing what they have done here by creating all this chaos and using this Trump dossier out there, briefing it to Congress as if it was something real that we have had to chase around for months, and we still have no evidence of Trump collusion with Russians. But it does appear like, if you take the Trump dossier at face value, that Christopher Steele was getting that -- this is the MI6 agent -- he was getting that information from Russian sources. So, it does get back to begging another issue I wanted to clarify with you. Maybe it's too soon to clarify, Chairman, so I understand -- that, did the Russians have a vested interest in one or the other candidate winning? Well, according to our intelligence agencies that produced a report in January, yes. Now, with that said, they did that report in four weeks, OK? Now, this was before Congress even had this Trump dossier. Did they use the Trump dossier in that report? We think so. So, but also keep in mind that, since March, we have been conducting this investigation. We asked a very simple question. Who paid for this dossier? Who paid for it? Who pay Fusion GPS? All right, and that's something that you want to find out. But your ranking member, minority member, Adam Schiff, has already said this whole Uranium One probe is a distraction. It's being pushed, he says, by the White House, by Breitbart. He even adds FOX. What do you say? Well, I can tell you this, that we found about the -- we have been working with this informant for several months who has been in contact with us. He wanted the ability to come forward. He had very interesting information, most importantly, that there was an open FBI investigation dating back to as early as 2010. It was the same time frame that Republicans in Congress were opposed to selling Uranium One to a known Russian government company. So, I would say to anybody who is questioning this, this is in fact our job in the legislative branch. If -- how is it that our government could approve a sale of 20 percent of our uranium at the same time that there was an open FBI investigation? I think it raises a whole lot of questions. Do we have unequivocal proof, even at this stage, though, Chairman, that that deal to get that uranium translated later on and the folks behind it getting money to the Clinton Foundation? No. No idea at this point. No idea. We don't even know yet at this point whether or not there was an open FBI investigation. But we have people who say there was. Right. We haven't had a denial for DOJ or FBI that there was an open investigation. And the other question is, Congress should have been briefed at the time on an ongoing FBI investigation like this, especially something seriously the Russians doing bribery -- running bribery schemes. If this is true and Congress wasn't briefed, this is just another black eye, I think, for our intelligence agencies that, quite frankly, look like they had been weaponized at this point by the Democratic Party. We will watch closely. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks, Neil. All right. The read from the RNC chair, Ronna McDaniel -- next. All right, I want to show you a quick FOX poll that we have out now that might sort of give you a close-up shot on where people's sentiment lies right now going for Congress in their respective district, that there's been a pickup in Democratic support and a slight decline in Republican support. Now, that doesn't jibe, I should stress, with money being raised, where Republicans are dwarfing Democrats with money being raised. This young lady could have something to do with that. Of course, I'm talking about the Republican National Committee chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel. By the way, we did call the head of the DNC, Tom Perez, and invited him to appear on this show as well. So far, we haven't been lucky. But you never know. Hope springs eternal. Anyway, Ronna, there's a bit of a split there. Right? People who seem to think right now, well, I'm more inclined to vote Democrat, but when it's time to open up wallets, hey, I'm more inclined to support Republicans. What do you make of that? Well, that poll is a generic poll. Absolutely. So, you're not putting a person against a person and it's different district to district as you size up the candidates and their records. But when it comes to the RNC and our record fund-raising, we have raised the $104 million mark, the most we have ever raised in a post-presidential election. We're capitalizing on the enthusiasm for President Trump. Who is giving that, Ronna? Small-dollar donors, $200 and under is a huge portion of that. Yes. And then our major donors are investing, too, because we recognize, especially with this past election, the importance of being in states early, setting up a ground game, having the data, knowing who your likely voters are and what message you need to get to them to turn them out. And we're already in 18 states gearing up for 2018. So, we're investing the money we're raising right into the ground. And I feel like we're in an excellent position for 2018. Are you surprised Democrats are having a devil of a time raising money or taking advantage of this uptick in the polling? Yes, the DNC is still dealing with the division and the debacle of 2016 with Bernie Sanders, recognizing that they had put their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. They had put the primaries in place and they put the debates in place to benefit one candidate. And Bernie Sanders' supporters have said, no, hands off. We're not going to support the DNC. They have a trust issue. And then I think large investors are saying, show us your plan. Yes. And they lost the four specials. The RNC is in a great place. And the president is putting forward an agenda and talking about a vision for the country. Democrats are saying... But these tax cuts -- these tax cuts are everything now. They're everything. They are. Are you surprised it was as close in the House as it was? No, because I knew the Freedom Caucus wasn't going to take the Senate bill, the Senate budget as is. Yes. But do you think that it could presage how the Senate Republicans vote, that you might lose a couple? We will see. And they're going to go into conference and they're going to come up with something that both chambers can pass, and hopefully with some bipartisan support. Listen, we haven't had a tax cut for the middle class since Reagan. It's time. Wages have been stagnant. People are hurting. It's time for Washington to give money back to the hardworking people in this country. Now, the president has gone on record, and then he had to dial it a little bit back, Ronna, about when it comes to the deduction for contributions to 401(k)s, he didn't think that was a good idea. Kevin Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee wanted to leave it out there. Apparently, they were kicking this around today and decided to fight another day on this in the House Ways and Means. We will know next week whether that is part of it or not. We will also know whether there's the deduction for state and local taxes, whether it's in there or out of there or phased in. Do you think these differences are such that they could cost this whole deal? We will see what they come up with. I think they're being very deliberate. They're taking the time to make sure they can get the votes. We need to get tax cuts. It's something we ran on. Our voters are depending on it. If you don't, do you think it's over? I don't, because still a binary choice between us and the progressive agenda. Do you think any of this nastiness between the president and a couple of senators is going to come back to bite? I don't, because I think of the Lakers. Remember Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe? They didn't get along, but they still went and won championships. That's a basketball analogy. [Laughter] A basketball analogy. They still went and won their championships. Their purpose united them. We're going to do that as a party. But you think it would still likely be -- Corker and Flake would likely be yes votes for that? Yes, because they're representing the American people. And you can have differences of opinion within your party. What about McCain? What is your gut on McCain? I think he will too. Really? I really do. I think they are going to come together. This is a time for our party to show that we can lead and it's our time to deliver for the American people who put us in the majority. All right, Ronna, thank you very, very much, Ronna McDaniel, the RNC chairwoman. Of course, the offer still stands for her Democratic counterpart. You never know. In the meantime, The Wall Street Journal is indeed reporting, and we can confirm, that CVS is sort of kicking the tires of health insurance giant Aetna. Or could it be the other way around? So much going on. Our Charlie Gasparino on top of both after this. You know, this has to be one of the longest corporate merger teases. For the better part of the year now, talks that CVS and Aetna or one other player would be looking at hooking up. Now The Wall Street Journal reporting right now those two entities are considering doing just that. So much we don't know. To Charlie Gasparino on where this could be going, what it could be signaling. What do you think, bud? It could be signaling one of the biggest deals of the year, $66 billion. But, more than that, we should point out that if you combine these two companies together, you are creating a health care company on par with Apple in terms of revenues and what it does and how much money it generates. And this will be a huge deal. And to step back a little bit more, think about this. You walk into CVS. They have clinics there. You get your prescriptions filled there. You can get your mouthwash there. And you can buy insurance there. Think about that. This is one-stop shopping in the health insurance business to the max. And one other thing, Neil, and this is the political element. This deal wouldn't have gotten done if the Obama Justice Department were in power or if the Hillary Clinton Justice Department were in power. This is -- and you will see other deals like this, I think more, mainly in telecom, but probably also health care. This is a factor of the Trump Justice Department Antitrust Division putting its mark on more -- on allowing more of these deals to go through. The Obama people, the Clinton people, the left would say, listen, we think too much power in the hands of too few companies will ultimately lead to higher prices, it will gouge the consumer. What free market people might say is like, listen, some of these big companies, they are able to negotiate better pricing with hospitals, with - - you can buy everything under one roof. There is a sort of synergy that occurs. But wasn't that a concern of the president's when it at least came to health insurers? He didn't want to see them get richer. Well, this could be a case where they do. Well, he mentioned that he didn't like the fact that CNN would merge with AT&T and create too much under one roof, too much concentration. That's what he said. He's put in place people, his bureaucrats in the Justice Department, in the DOJ, the Justice Department, in the FEC, which looks over telecom mergers, that are very free market, that would allow something like this. And, Neil, if this happens, this is huge, OK? Absolutely. I say if because these deals could always fall apart. And we do know they are talking. But who knows what the hell is going to happen in the end? OK, buddy, thank you very, very much. All right, Charlie Gasparino, FOX Business Network. You don't get it, demand it. And you don't want him, you lose money. That's your call, folks. That's just your call. All right, bottom line here, we are going to be following this. We are going to be following, of course, the fallout of these tax talks. They are having a devil of a time agreeing on how we get them. They all agree we need them. But then there is that little tiny issue of paying for them. We are all over it. See you.